National Reciprocity to be introduced to the House(Again)

[Haides]

Its a success of logic in the context of the US Constitution

Its a failure to achieve an outcome that is satisfactory to a minority of the population that are battered gun owners who choose to live in states that refuse to protect their rights.

If RKBA is important enough to you then move to a state that protects your rights.....in doing so you will be able to enjoy those rights as well as eventually shift the balance of power away from states that seek only to infringe upon your rights.

The Constitution wasn't granted the power/authority to act as mommy/daddy....when are folks going to begin to comprehend this.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government, but we don't really care if the states do, that's totally fine."

The way you talk about it makes it sound like the Anti-Federalists won, but they didn't. The Bill of Rights has absolutely no purpose, then. Not only does this not make any sense, it's completely contradictory to the philosophy and principles that led to the nation's founding. Why bother limiting the fed govt when you're just going to let the states run rogue and infringe on whatever rights they please? One of our other founding documents outlines the purpose of government:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

The COTUS is a foundation of rules that cover the entire US. States cannot infringe on enumerated rights any more then the fed, lest they become an institution operating completely contrary to its purpose.

And states don't have rights, they have powers.

 

[Brooklyn]

Believe what you will. The reason people generally vote along ethnic line's because they share an affinity of similar viewpoints, culture and in sme cases language. Please do not reduce the 2A to libs and dems, blacks and whites etc. That gets okd really quick. Bottom line is people eho have similarities often support the same issues. Singing "you're so vain, I bet you think this song is about you."

Sent from my mobile device.

Hey T you are letting them get to you again..

I know and you know whats going on an so do many others here.

Don't assume silence is assent --- sometimes its just fatigue. Most here can tell that our problem is much bigger than such simplistic comments. It frustrates me know end that this keeps popping up.

Keep your cool, look its not worth it..

 

[T'Challa]

Hey T you are letting them get to you again..

I know and you know whats going on an so do many others here.

Don't assume silence is assent --- sometimes its just fatigue. Most here can tell that our problem is much bigger than such simplistic comments. It frustrates me know end that this keeps popping up.

Keep your cool, look its not worth it..

Thanks. Respect bro.

Sent from my mobile device.

 

[jpk1md]

So, cultural conditioning, as I put it, is somehow the same as genetic effect and can be dismissed because correlation does not equal causation?

But learned values/beliefs (as mysteriously distinguished from cultural conditioning) are somehow not subject to the the same dismissal?

Daft, indeed.

No, the disagreement I had was specific to the statement another poster made wrt minority voting habits being a function of skin color/genetics.

Learned behavior/beliefs (good/Bad or Right/wrong) are obviously central to the issue/problem

 

[jpk1md]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government, but we don't really care if the states do, that's totally fine."

The way you talk about it makes it sound like the Anti-Federalists won, but they didn't. The Bill of Rights has absolutely no purpose, then. Not only does this not make any sense, it's completely contradictory to the philosophy and principles that led to the nation's founding. Why bother limiting the fed govt when you're just going to let the states run rogue and infringe on whatever rights they please? One of our other founding documents outlines the purpose of government:

The COTUS is a foundation of rules that cover the entire US. States cannot infringe on enumerated rights any more then the fed, lest they become an institution operating completely contrary to its purpose.

And states don't have rights, they have powers.

The entire premise of your argument doesnt hold water based upon the ratification debates in the first congress and the individual states wrt the first 10 ammendments

Even the federalist papers make this clear that plenary power was reserved to the states and that the constitution was an outline for the formation of a Federal gooberment not a National gooberment as well as the specific powers granted to that gooberment

If you need anectotal evidence to support this simply read the preamble to the BOR

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

 

[Haides]

I've read the preamble to the BoR, and honestly it makes what I'm saying make even more sense.

"THE... States, having... expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added"

Why would the states bother limiting the powers of the federal goverment over the people (not the states), unless they were simultaneously doing it to themselves, rather than leaving themselves open to the very same infringements they were trying to guard against? Like I said: logic fail.

 

[Gryphon]

Keep at it guys sooner or latter, I bet sooner, he will have to a take a pee break, and eventually he will need some food - he can't filibuster forever

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

No, the disagreement I had was specific to the statement another poster made wrt minority voting habits being a function of skin color/genetics.

Learned behavior/beliefs (good/Bad or Right/wrong) are obviously central to the issue/problem

Ok. You quoted me, thus my confusion.

 

[Rattlesnake46319]

Keep at it guys sooner or latter, I bet sooner, he will have to a take a pee break, and eventually he will need some food - he can't filibuster forever

You must be new here....

This is what we like to call jpk's "Constitutional Condescension". Occurs on a roughly quarterly schedule. He'll be going for a few more days.

 

[hvymax]

The Bill of Rights enumerates the inviolable God Given Rights of every American. Of course the century long Domestic Enemy campaign has left most Americans claiming Ignorance as their only Civil Right.

 

[jpk1md]

I've read the preamble to the BoR, and honestly it makes what I'm saying make even more sense.

"THE... States, having... expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added"

Why would the states bother limiting the powers of the federal goverment over the people (not the states), unless they were simultaneously doing it to themselves, rather than leaving themselves open to the very same infringements they were trying to guard against? Like I said: logic fail.

"The Government" in the preamble is a reference to the fledgeling FEDERAL government not the individual states.

This is consistent throughout the entire constitution and original 10 amendments of the period

You continue to look at the issue through the 2013 lense instead of the 1791 lense........in other words what you're doing is no different than the liberals declaration that the constitution is a "living/breathing" fungable document.

We KNOW thats not the case.

 

[jpk1md]

Keep at it guys sooner or latter, I bet sooner, he will have to a take a pee break, and eventually he will need some food - he can't filibuster forever

You may want to consider joining "Team Depends"

 

[Haides]

"The Government" in the preamble is a reference to the fledgeling FEDERAL government not the individual states.

Huh? I don't see "the government" in the preamble to the BoR much at all except for "public confidence in the government"... I do see...

"THE Conventions of a number of the States"

and

"that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States"

Why would the states need to approve amendments to the federal constitution if they didn't affect them? Hmmm...

in other words what you're doing is no different than the liberals declaration that the constitution is a "living/breathing" fungable document.

Uhm, no. Definitely not "what I'm doing."

 

[jpk1md]

Huh? I don't see "the government" in the preamble to the BoR much at all except for "public confidence in the government"... I do see...

"THE Conventions of a number of the States"

and

"that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States"

Why would the states need to approve amendments to the federal constitution if they didn't affect them? Hmmm...

In order for the amendments to be ratified 3/4 of the "Several States" are required to approve them.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Think about it for a moment.......we all know and accept that plenary power is reserved to the states.......there's no debating this point.....we have a Federal Goobernment not a National or Central Gooberment.

Why would the states accept request limitations on their own powers......that goes against everything in the historical record.

The states were trying to protect themselves and their own ability to govern themselves from the possibilities of a tyranical gooberment much like the british empire that they had just seceded from

There's nothing in the language of 2A that would suggest that it operates on any level of government other than the federal government.

This is further supported by the 10th and the fact that most but not all states had language in their OWN constitutions which were considered to trump the federal gooberment on all powers not explicitly granted to the fed gov..

Everywhere you turn in the historical record is evidence to support the notion that these original ammendments were nothing more than a limitation on the fed gov and unless explictly referenced as prohibited to the states they had no bearing whatsoever on the plenary powers reserved to the states.

Uhm, no. Definitely not "what I'm doing."

Of course you are.....you're doing the same thing that libs do when they attempt to change the definition of words and use them in a 2013 context instead of the context they were originally used and ratified in.......the living breathing constituion theory is nothing but dishonest bunk as are attempts to shore up the unconstitutional argument to support "Incorporation"

The bottom line is that there's no constitutional power granted to the fed gov that would allow it to force one state to accept the permits/licenses of another

 

[5.56blaster]

It sure would be nice to know that when I cross a state line I wont get locked up because I could carry in one state and not another. You wouldn't need to have a bunch of permits and you wouldn't have to worry about what has changed each year for example non resident Florida carry in Pennsylvania. Wouldn't it be nice to have things easy for us instead of harder?

 

[jpk1md]

It sure would be nice to know that when I cross a state line I wont get locked up because I could carry in one state and not another. You wouldn't need to have a bunch of permits and you wouldn't have to worry about what has changed each year for example non resident Florida carry in Pennsylvania. Wouldn't it be nice to have things easy for us instead of harder?

It absolutely would be easier but the solution is to solve it at the state level where plenary power resides instead of manufacturing some new unconstitutional power and extablishing a precident for further infringement upon citizens and states.

Do we really need to give the fed gov yet another unconstitutional precident/power grab to abuse?

 

[Haides]

Well damn, you sold me jpk. Now I realize that the Constitution is as weak as the two hundred year old paper it was written on and as worthless, redundant, and unnecessary as this debate.

 

[jpk1md]

Well damn, you sold me jpk. Now I realize that the Constitution is as weak as the two hundred year old paper it was written on and as worthless, redundant, and unnecessary as this debate.

The Constitution was actually written on Parchment (Animal Skin) not paper so its actually quite durable relatively speaking.

And yes to the point the Fed Gov was explicitly designed and intended to be the junior/weaker link as plenary power was always reserved to the states.

Think about it....why bother having a state gov at all if the states were simply going to cede all power to the fed gov.

If you are actually interested in the who/why/how of all of the above google "New Views of the Constitution" by John Taylor of Caroline.......you might want to google who he was as well beforehand......its avail to read freely on the web

 

[Haides]

Why bother enumerating protections for the people from one potentially-tyrannical body while leaving the other potentially-tyrannical bodies completely free to do the same thing? Why bother having a federal government if it isn't powerful enough to reign in the states that go rogue? Why bother fighting a war against tyranny to simply create a new tyranny of your own? Why babble on about inalienable rights and then say, hey, its fine to take them away? If you're right, the founders were complete dumbasses who wasted a perfect opportunity to do something good. Luckily, you're not.

Good day.

 

[press1280]

Text not available yet, but its got a bill #- HR 2959
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr2959#overview